Yes, you are missing something. Apple advertises. Then a customer orders. Before the actual shipment of product, Apple only has a promise that the customer will pay and the customer has a promise that Apple will ship. Apple does not receive money until the product (in this case, the Power Macintosh G4) ships to the customer.
What Apple screwed up was cancelling the G4 orders. If you had taken the time to read today's press release (which is the topic here), you would realize that Apple has decided to honor all G4 orders that it had previously cancelled. Thus Apple is shipping what it has advertised. (And your yelling about money is not only annoying but wrong.)
Online journalism is no worse than printed journalism. Newspapers as an aggregate present conflicting information all the time. It is not difficult to point out stories from the past few years that collectively show the circus-minded nature of regular media: Clinton/Lewinsky, JonBenet Ramsey, Columbine,....
I see no reason to believe that "sensationalism" increases readership online more than offline.
As far this G4 story, each report on Slashdot was accurate at the time of post, presenting new, more-timely information.
(Apple cancelled all G4 orders, then Apple reinstated the orders, then Apple contacted its resellers and told them that their G4 orders were cancelled, and, finally, today Apple's head was pulled out of its ass.)
In many ways online journalism is better. New information does not have to wait for the next day's edition. Readers can voice feedback that is heard in days, even minutes, not weeks. Discussion of the issues can take place without the intervention of an editor.
It goes back to when Europe was considered the center of the world. (Not to offend, the context here is that of English as a language for the people who spoke it back then.) Ways to express near and far geographic areas developed taking into account England being the center. Thus, the Americas are to the West (the Western Hemisphere) and the Orient and Middle East, etc., to the East (the Eastern Hemisphere). Being somewhat Euro-centric and since standards, good or bad, are hard to displace (see Windows), present-day Americans still speak this way. ----
It's the U.S. Government and its evil anti-trust division at the Department of Justice which is trying to keep Microsoft from innovating. Microsoft has to defend itself. Everybody agrees.
It is not about Apple's death knell, it is about Apple making a really indefensible move. Even being a G4/450 owner (writing this on it right now) and having ordered my father a G4/450 (which was cancelled, un-cancelled, and now resides in limbo), I do not have anymore love for this company.
Apple is f*cking its most loyal customers (its power users) in the ass! It is not fair to those users and it is not fair to us, the Mac faithful, who have been defending them for years.
There is no problem with Apple raising its prices. That it can do whenever it wants to. (Even if we don't like it.)
The problem comes when Apple cancels orders that it has already taken.
The cancellation of confirmed orders is what is making customers angry.
When Apple took these orders, Apple agreed to deliver its product for a given price. Now Apple is backing away from its agreement and alienating nearly 80,000 customers by not honoring its contract with them.
A great analysis of the situation (before the flip-flop of the flip-flop) can be found at MacOpinion. I do smell a class-action lawsuit brewing here, but for those who don't wish to make an attorney richer, please take the time to let the Federal Trade Commission know how you feel about this using the FTC Complaint Form.
Btw, in the two scenarios you present, Apple ships more units the first way, not the second (with the worst case being an equal number of shipments). ----
There should be an extra off-topic/lamer point system. Every moderator should have unlimited o-points to apply to posts such as the above. But the o-point counts as only 1/10th of a regular -1 point. Thus when ten moderators have said, this particular post is decisively bad, then that post will be moderated to -1 without wasting regular moderation points.
Just a thought.
(ps-it appears that post-anonymously has been discontinued)
Domain names are not different. Current trademark law already protects companies from domain name squatters. If you don't believe this, look at case law on the subject from the last 4 years.
There's no need for this extra legislation.
Again, there is NO NEED FOR THIS EXTRA LEGISLATION!!!!
It only makes it easier for a large corporation (such as Microsoft) to fuck a little guy for having a good idea first, but not having the legal manpower (read: $) to back it up.
See Microsoft and Windows2000.com. Registered in 1996, this domain (well in advance) preceded M$ decision to let its OS assembly line slip in production once again so that it had to rename its OS to Windows2000. Does microsoft own the trademark windows? Maybe. Actually, not really since it is f*cking generic. I'm sitting next to three (3) windows right now, and M$ didn't have thing to do with them. I look outside and I see people.
Windows were a concept first introduced to the computer world at large by Apple computers (and they were called just that, windows), first with Lisa & then with the Macintosh Operating System (now called MacOS). Apple borrowed this idea from previous work, but the previous work was non-commercial. M$ stole the work from Apple for the simple reason that Apple made a product with this work, licensed use of this work to M$ for use in writing programs for Macintoshes, and then M$ turned around and bit Apple in the *ss by coming out with its own OS based on the concepts that it had learned within the legally-binding relationship of a non-disclosure (and thus non-use except as specified) by Apple.
Well, I'm way the f*ck off topic, but the current trademark laws are sufficient, and there is no need to give police power to corporate America. They're got enough power as it is.
His points are no more engaging or noteworthy than mine, yet he has received an additional point.
Myself, none.
I am not in it for the points, but I do wonder about how they are awarded and who is doing so.
So as not to be declared off-topic, I will reply to chromatic's words.
Threats of death or otherwise ARE very much a problem of speech. This is precisely why I do not use my real name on slashdot. Why don't you?
I was only speaking of myself when I said other p.o.v. change my worldview. I often hate what I hear, but I restrain police-state type retribution and instead either hear, ignore, or hear and reply -- none of which detract from the other's free speech.
As far as the Declaration of Independence, if death had been a present possibility in the room in which the signers stood and signed, I KNOW that most would not have chosen to sign. That is human nature..
Yes, their live's were threatened, but in no immediate sense. And I do NOT believe that they spoke freely there either.
I will have to investigate this statism, though I expect it will not be more widespread than religion-based censoring, I welcome the possibility I may be wrong, because I prefer to find out about the world at large than hold myself to whatever happen to be my current points-of-view.
If statism is some state-enforced censorship, I would say, most states of the past which did such things have been clearly religious based. (states meaning nations, etc.)
Payment at registration is now required by Network solutions (this changed late last month). There is no longer any 6 month delay. Plus if someone does not register under their real name then no real person owns the domain and, in a simple legal move, the ownership of the domain by such person is unenforceable.
I do not see why corporate types are unwillingly to use the very sufficient, existing trademark laws to protect their intellectual property. Why do they have to introduce police state type legislation?
It is an interesting idea, but since posting is such a big part and people here use English in very nuanced and particular ways (I'm not being sarcastic), the translations would tend to lose the meaning which is the whole point.
However, at some future point when neural net computing has been developed much further than at present, a computer may be able to do a much more acceptable job of translation (since it will act like a human mind or even better than a human mind in being able to interpret these nuances and appropriately translate them).
The problem is that these people refuse to consider an alternative point-of-view to such an extent that they threaten to murder the speaker. When one's life is threatened for speaking one canNOT speak freely. That is human nature.
Threatening death for voicing/holding a different point-of-view, that is religious nature.
Speech is NOT free in this country. And I'm not talking about the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater kind of speech either.
Having actual free speech would in and of itself change the world.
Whenever I hear a viewpoint different from my own and take the time to consider it, it does change my own world view. The Internet disseminates information in a manner completely new from the past. Books can be burned, printing presses stopped, radio towers knocked out, and telephones easily wire-tapped. The Internet is by its very design able to overcome these problems (though the FBI is working feverishly to institute new guidelines in IPv6 and its infastructure such that the present freedoms will be no more).
I really do NOT think that Ivy League schools are impervious to that kind of influence.
Um, what operating system do they use?
Which prayers are read at their commencements?
When do these schools fund controversial research? Not when it has been outlawed by Congress and its right-wing component which forbids research into the beginnings of life itself. Embryos are not allowed to be studied because that could be construed as abortion, which is bad because it kills a child which has a right-to-life like all of us. Except it is not a child. It is a bundle of tissue. Just as I was NOT a child when the embryo that became me existed inside my mother. Those were mere cells.
Is it then okay to kill a murderer because his sperm is made up of potential cells which are potential embyros and thus potential children? Makes Capital punishment, something almost equally advocated by religious-right fanatics seem equal to abortion.
Anyways, not to get too far off-track (as I am post 8 hundred-and-?? and I'm sure this will be read by a lot of people), speech is NOT free in the United States of America, nor in its Ivy League universities.
p.s.-I like Slashdot a lot because even though moderation is used, "You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page" which means speech here is much more free (freer) than in other venues in these United States. (I've personally set my threshold to -1 since I like to see all the gory details. They make life interesting.)
Microsoft steals patents all the time. Makes sense since they have gobs of money with which to control the U.S. patent office.
As a recent example, PriceLine's patented technology is being stolen right now:
CEO Bill Gates told Priceline founder Jay Walker that he wasn't going to let patent infringement claims stand in his way.... "Mr. Gates went on to say that many other companies were suing Microsoft for patent infringement and that priceline.com could, in effect, get in line."
A little further in the past, GoldTouch technologies filed a lawsuit which is still pending over MS's outright theft of their patented ergonomic mouse technology:
The Meeting with Microsoft 9. In September 1997, during an intensive two-hour meeting, Goldtouch representatives met with Microsoft representatives, disclosed the design of the Goldtouch mouse to Microsoft, and proposed that Microsoft license and market the Goldtouch mouse. Microsoft knew of Goldtouch's pending patent application at the time of this meeting. 10. During the September 1997 meeting, senior Microsoft design staff closely examined a sample of the Goldtouch mouse and extensively questioned Mr.Goldstein on how and why it had been invented. Being very familiar with product design generally, they used their own extensive background to explore in detail both the unique design rationale and the underlying scientific measurements which demonstrated that the Goldtouch mouse was superior to competing mice. Microsoft thus was able to acquire valuable design information even beyond that disclosed in the then-pending patent application (which had not yet been made public). As experienced industry hands, they knew that this information was extremely valuable, not just for Goldtouch's current product line, but for the future innovation which Goldtouch relied on for its very existence. Microsoft Markets the Goldtouch Mouse As Its Own 11. At the conclusion of the September 1997 meeting, Microsoft professed to be completely uninterested in the Goldtouch mouse, and led Goldtouch to believe that Microsoft was entirely satisfied with its existing mouse designs. Despite these representations, only about one year later Microsoft introduced its own ergonomic mouse, the Intellimouse® Pro. In the year following the meeting with Goldtouch, Microsoft copied important features of the Goldtouch sample mouse examined at the September 1997 meeting, implemented additional advanced features discussed at the meeting, and began to manufacture its knock-off product. Microsoft misappropriated Goldtouch's trade secrets to enhance its own inadequate designs. 12. Microsoft's knock-off mouse copies patented features relating to the shape of the Goldtouch mouse and adds rubber inserts to enhance ease of gripping. But the additional inserts themselves are an idea stolen from Goldtouch - a premium feature that was specifically discussed at the September 1997 meeting. Nevertheless, Microsoft's Intellimouse® Pro is an inferior product and it certainly infringes Goldtouch's issued patent. Microsoft is effectively draining Goldtouch's lifeblood by unlawfully exploiting its most carefully guarded ideas and their scientific basis. 13. Through the unconscionable scheme described above, Microsoft has sought to add Goldtouch's purloined intellectual property to Microsoft's already impressive hoard of ill-gotten gains, in so doing, Microsoft has dealt Goldtouch a grievous wound. Goldtouch invokes the jurisdiction of this Court to obtain compensation for Microsoft's theft of benefits which Goldtouch otherwise would have received for its innovation and leadership in ergonomic mouse design. Goldtouch further requests that the Court enter an order enjoining Microsoft from further violations of state and federal intellectual property law.
Please, ecampbel (itiyrn:), go back and read the patent. Amazon filed for it in Sept 1997. It is unlikely that no one came up this before (preposterous really) and not the other way around.
As for/. readers criticizing Amazon's patent, that's why the topic was posted in the first place. The patent deserves criticism since it lacks merit.
As a reader points out above(#112 - in response to you actually), outpost.com has been doing this for a long time.
ecampbel says the exact same thing in posts #99, #100, and #101. He has not taken into any consideration what people responded to his initial post above with. And he continues to claim that the patent must of gone way back "since it's a patent and patents take a long time to be done" (to paraphrase), without looking at the patent app itself which says it was filed in September 1997.
p.s. - the patent is voracious, in that it will eat other small websites for lunch, but fails with veracity, in that it is not true Amazon should be able to patent this
Actually, this is a very feasible idea. By publishing the description of an invention, the ability to patent then becomes solely available to the author. Then, one year after publishing, if a patent has not been filed, the described invention can no longer be patented by anyone and becomes part of the public domain. (I believe the publishing has to take place in a regular print-based publication though.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are missing something. Apple advertises. Then a customer orders. Before the actual shipment of product, Apple only has a promise that the customer will pay and the customer has a promise that Apple will ship. Apple does not receive money until the product (in this case, the Power Macintosh G4) ships to the customer.
What Apple screwed up was cancelling the G4 orders. If you had taken the time to read today's press release (which is the topic here), you would realize that Apple has decided to honor all G4 orders that it had previously cancelled. Thus Apple is shipping what it has advertised. (And your yelling about money is not only annoying but wrong.)
Online journalism is no worse than printed journalism. Newspapers as an aggregate present conflicting information all the time. It is not difficult to point out stories from the past few years that collectively show the circus-minded nature of regular media: Clinton/Lewinsky, JonBenet Ramsey, Columbine, ....
I see no reason to believe that "sensationalism" increases readership online more than offline.
As far this G4 story, each report on Slashdot was accurate at the time of post, presenting new, more-timely information.
(Apple cancelled all G4 orders, then Apple reinstated the orders, then Apple contacted its resellers and told them that their G4 orders were cancelled, and, finally, today Apple's head was pulled out of its ass.)
In many ways online journalism is better. New information does not have to wait for the next day's edition. Readers can voice feedback that is heard in days, even minutes, not weeks. Discussion of the issues can take place without the intervention of an editor.
It goes back to when Europe was considered the center of the world. (Not to offend, the context here is that of English as a language for the people who spoke it back then.) Ways to express near and far geographic areas developed taking into account England being the center. Thus, the Americas are to the West (the Western Hemisphere) and the Orient and Middle East, etc., to the East (the Eastern Hemisphere). Being somewhat Euro-centric and since standards, good or bad, are hard to displace (see Windows), present-day Americans still speak this way.
----
touche
The problem is, and what this thread is about, is that they reversed their reversal.
---------------------------------
Who moderates this thing?
----
Wait a second, Microsoft is not at fault.
It's the U.S. Government and its evil anti-trust division at the Department of Justice which is trying to keep Microsoft from innovating. Microsoft has to defend itself. Everybody agrees.
You see, Microsoft has this website called the Freedom to Innovate Network.
But then I forgot to pay my Microsoft tax and I was shot.
----
It is not about Apple's death knell, it is about Apple making a really indefensible move. Even being a G4/450 owner (writing this on it right now) and having ordered my father a G4/450 (which was cancelled, un-cancelled, and now resides in limbo), I do not have anymore love for this company.
Apple is f*cking its most loyal customers (its power users) in the ass! It is not fair to those users and it is not fair to us, the Mac faithful, who have been defending them for years.
Frankly, I'm sick of it.
MacCPU has a good article, Stevie in Vaporland or How to Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory, on this fiasco.
----
So why don't we start the Slashdot political party? Then we could have our very own slashdot.gov domain name.
/.!
Vote
/. forever!
----
There is no problem with Apple raising its prices. That it can do whenever it wants to. (Even if we don't like it.)
The problem comes when Apple cancels orders that it has already taken.
The cancellation of confirmed orders is what is making customers angry.
When Apple took these orders, Apple agreed to deliver its product for a given price. Now Apple is backing away from its agreement and alienating nearly 80,000 customers by not honoring its contract with them.
A great analysis of the situation (before the flip-flop of the flip-flop) can be found at MacOpinion.
I do smell a class-action lawsuit brewing here, but for those who don't wish to make an attorney richer, please take the time to let the Federal Trade Commission know how you feel about this using the FTC Complaint Form.
Btw, in the two scenarios you present, Apple ships more units the first way, not the second (with the worst case being an equal number of shipments).
----
There should be an extra off-topic/lamer point system. Every moderator should have unlimited o-points to apply to posts such as the above. But the o-point counts as only 1/10th of a regular -1 point. Thus when ten moderators have said, this particular post is decisively bad, then that post will be moderated to -1 without wasting regular moderation points.
Just a thought.
(ps-it appears that post-anonymously has been discontinued)
You can't retroactivly enact legislation
But that is exactly what this bill does:
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act shall apply to all domain names registered before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act
Domain names are not different. Current trademark law already protects companies from domain name squatters. If you don't believe this, look at case law on the subject from the last 4 years.
There's no need for this extra legislation.
Again, there is NO NEED FOR THIS EXTRA LEGISLATION!!!!
It only makes it easier for a large corporation (such as Microsoft) to fuck a little guy for having a good idea first, but not having the legal manpower (read: $) to back it up.
See Microsoft and Windows2000.com. Registered in 1996, this domain (well in advance) preceded M$ decision to let its OS assembly line slip in production once again so that it had to rename its OS to Windows2000. Does microsoft own the trademark windows? Maybe. Actually, not really since it is f*cking generic. I'm sitting next to three (3) windows right now, and M$ didn't have thing to do with them. I look outside and I see people.
Windows were a concept first introduced to the computer world at large by Apple computers (and they were called just that, windows), first with Lisa & then with the Macintosh Operating System (now called MacOS). Apple borrowed this idea from previous work, but the previous work was non-commercial. M$ stole the work from Apple for the simple reason that Apple made a product with this work, licensed use of this work to M$ for use in writing programs for Macintoshes, and then M$ turned around and bit Apple in the *ss by coming out with its own OS based on the concepts that it had learned within the legally-binding relationship of a non-disclosure (and thus non-use except as specified) by Apple.
Well, I'm way the f*ck off topic, but the current trademark laws are sufficient, and there is no need to give police power to corporate America. They're got enough power as it is.
Microsof t pays congress to cut the Department of Justice's budget
"Where do you want to go tomorrow?" How about to court?
MSoft Throws Up Hands over 'Palm' -- Sort of
Micro$oft f*cks GoldTouch Technologies
As far as customer goodwill, does Microsoft have any?
Do you people pat yourselves on the back here?
His points are no more engaging or noteworthy than mine, yet he has received an additional point.
Myself, none.
I am not in it for the points, but I do wonder about how they are awarded and who is doing so.
So as not to be declared off-topic, I will reply to chromatic's words.
Threats of death or otherwise ARE very much a problem of speech. This is precisely why I do not use my real name on slashdot. Why don't you?
I was only speaking of myself when I said other p.o.v. change my worldview. I often hate what I hear, but I restrain police-state type retribution and instead either hear, ignore, or hear and reply -- none of which detract from the other's free speech.
As far as the Declaration of Independence, if death had been a present possibility in the room in which the signers stood and signed, I KNOW that most would not have chosen to sign. That is human nature..
Yes, their live's were threatened, but in no immediate sense. And I do NOT believe that they spoke freely there either.
I will have to investigate this statism, though I expect it will not be more widespread than religion-based censoring, I welcome the possibility I may be wrong, because I prefer to find out about the world at large than hold myself to whatever happen to be my current points-of-view.
If statism is some state-enforced censorship, I would say, most states of the past which did such things have been clearly religious based. (states meaning nations, etc.)
Payment at registration is now required by Network solutions (this changed late last month). There is no longer any 6 month delay. Plus if someone does not register under their real name then no real person owns the domain and, in a simple legal move, the ownership of the domain by such person is unenforceable.
I do not see why corporate types are unwillingly to use the very sufficient, existing trademark laws to protect their intellectual property. Why do they have to introduce police state type legislation?
But you are using English to reply.
Due to the uncertainty you claim inherent in the grammar being used here, I'd expect you to expect others to be confused by your post.
Well, infer what you want, but the person speaking here says these words have meaning.
Not to be too contrary, but Latin is a dead language. No one still living even knows how those words were pronounced.
It is an interesting idea, but since posting is such a big part and people here use English in very nuanced and particular ways (I'm not being sarcastic), the translations would tend to lose the meaning which is the whole point.
However, at some future point when neural net computing has been developed much further than at present, a computer may be able to do a much more acceptable job of translation (since it will act like a human mind or even better than a human mind in being able to interpret these nuances and appropriately translate them).
\/my eight pennies/\
The problem is that these people refuse to consider an alternative point-of-view to such an extent that they threaten to murder the speaker. When one's life is threatened for speaking one canNOT speak freely. That is human nature.
Threatening death for voicing/holding a different point-of-view, that is religious nature.
Speech is NOT free in this country. And I'm not talking about the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater kind of speech either.
Having actual free speech would in and of itself change the world.
Whenever I hear a viewpoint different from my own and take the time to consider it, it does change my own world view. The Internet disseminates information in a manner completely new from the past. Books can be burned, printing presses stopped, radio towers knocked out, and telephones easily wire-tapped. The Internet is by its very design able to overcome these problems (though the FBI is working feverishly to institute new guidelines in IPv6 and its infastructure such that the present freedoms will be no more).
I really do NOT think that Ivy League schools are impervious to that kind of influence.
Um, what operating system do they use?
Which prayers are read at their commencements?
When do these schools fund controversial research? Not when it has been outlawed by Congress and its right-wing component which forbids research into the beginnings of life itself. Embryos are not allowed to be studied because that could be construed as abortion, which is bad because it kills a child which has a right-to-life like all of us. Except it is not a child. It is a bundle of tissue. Just as I was NOT a child when the embryo that became me existed inside my mother. Those were mere cells.
Is it then okay to kill a murderer because his sperm is made up of potential cells which are potential embyros and thus potential children? Makes Capital punishment, something almost equally advocated by religious-right fanatics seem equal to abortion.
Anyways, not to get too far off-track (as I am post 8 hundred-and-?? and I'm sure this will be read by a lot of people), speech is NOT free in the United States of America, nor in its Ivy League universities.
p.s.-I like Slashdot a lot because even though moderation is used, "You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page" which means speech here is much more free (freer) than in other venues in these United States. (I've personally set my threshold to -1 since I like to see all the gory details. They make life interesting.)
Microsoft steals patents all the time. Makes sense since they have gobs of money with which to control the U.S. patent office.
... "Mr. Gates went on to say that many other companies were suing Microsoft for patent infringement and that priceline.com could, in effect, get in line."
As a recent example, PriceLine's patented technology is being stolen right now:
CEO Bill Gates told Priceline founder Jay Walker that he wasn't going to let patent infringement claims stand in his way.
A little further in the past, GoldTouch technologies filed a lawsuit which is still pending over MS's outright theft of their patented ergonomic mouse technology:
The Meeting with Microsoft 9. In September 1997, during an intensive two-hour meeting, Goldtouch representatives met with Microsoft representatives, disclosed the design of the Goldtouch mouse to Microsoft, and proposed that Microsoft license and market the Goldtouch mouse. Microsoft knew of Goldtouch's pending patent application at the time of this meeting. 10. During the September 1997 meeting, senior Microsoft design staff closely examined a sample of the Goldtouch mouse and extensively questioned Mr.Goldstein on how and why it had been invented. Being very familiar with product design generally, they used their own extensive background to explore in detail both the unique design rationale and the underlying scientific measurements which demonstrated that the Goldtouch mouse was superior to competing mice. Microsoft thus was able to acquire valuable design information even beyond that disclosed in the then-pending patent application (which had not yet been made public). As experienced industry hands, they knew that this information was extremely valuable, not just for Goldtouch's current product line, but for the future innovation which Goldtouch relied on for its very existence. Microsoft Markets the Goldtouch Mouse As Its Own 11. At the conclusion of the September 1997 meeting, Microsoft professed to be completely uninterested in the Goldtouch mouse, and led Goldtouch to believe that Microsoft was entirely satisfied with its existing mouse designs. Despite these representations, only about one year later Microsoft introduced its own ergonomic mouse, the Intellimouse® Pro. In the year following the meeting with Goldtouch, Microsoft copied important features of the Goldtouch sample mouse examined at the September 1997 meeting, implemented additional advanced features discussed at the meeting, and began to manufacture its knock-off product. Microsoft misappropriated Goldtouch's trade secrets to enhance its own inadequate designs. 12. Microsoft's knock-off mouse copies patented features relating to the shape of the Goldtouch mouse and adds rubber inserts to enhance ease of gripping. But the additional inserts themselves are an idea stolen from Goldtouch - a premium feature that was specifically discussed at the September 1997 meeting. Nevertheless, Microsoft's Intellimouse® Pro is an inferior product and it certainly infringes Goldtouch's issued patent. Microsoft is effectively draining Goldtouch's lifeblood by unlawfully exploiting its most carefully guarded ideas and their scientific basis. 13. Through the unconscionable scheme described above, Microsoft has sought to add Goldtouch's purloined intellectual property to Microsoft's already impressive hoard of ill-gotten gains, in so doing, Microsoft has dealt Goldtouch a grievous wound. Goldtouch invokes the jurisdiction of this Court to obtain compensation for Microsoft's theft of benefits which Goldtouch otherwise would have received for its innovation and leadership in ergonomic mouse design. Goldtouch further requests that the Court enter an order enjoining Microsoft from further violations of state and federal intellectual property law.
More is at... Complaint
Please, ecampbel (itiyrn:), go back and read the patent. Amazon filed for it in Sept 1997. It is unlikely that no one came up this before (preposterous really) and not the other way around.
/. readers criticizing Amazon's patent, that's why the topic was posted in the first place. The patent deserves criticism since it lacks merit.
As for
As a reader points out above(#112 - in response to you actually), outpost.com has been doing this for a long time.
ecampbel says the exact same thing in posts #99, #100, and #101. He has not taken into any consideration what people responded to his initial post above with. And he continues to claim that the patent must of gone way back "since it's a patent and patents take a long time to be done" (to paraphrase), without looking at the patent app itself which says it was filed in September 1997.
p.s. - the patent is voracious, in that it will eat other small websites for lunch, but fails with veracity, in that it is not true Amazon should be able to patent this
Hear! Hear!
Very good idea!
What this world needs is much more ethical integrity!
Actually, this is a very feasible idea. By publishing the description of an invention, the ability to patent then becomes solely available to the author. Then, one year after publishing, if a patent has not been filed, the described invention can no longer be patented by anyone and becomes part of the public domain. (I believe the publishing has to take place in a regular print-based publication though.)
If you read post #16, you'd see why.
The sh*thead thing probably doesn't help either.
Humor's what your looking for: try some p-commerce.
Score: -1 (redundant) == you keeping posting the same damn thing.